This page sets out the editorial standards RecoverFitNow is adopting for new content and substantive updates. We are reviewing older articles against these standards; not every existing article has completed that review. An article’s substantive review date should indicate when its research was checked, rather than merely when its date was changed.
Choosing topics
We focus on practical buying and recovery questions for active adults, with an initial emphasis on gluten-free supplements and recovery nutrition. Search queries, reader questions and gaps in existing information help us identify topics. Search demand alone does not make a topic worth publishing, and keyword estimates are not evidence for a product claim.
Before commissioning another article, we check whether an existing page already answers the same question. We prefer improving a useful page to publishing near-identical articles.
Selecting and comparing products
We consider the reader’s needs, relevant specifications, available evidence, limitations, availability and value. Affiliate availability can inform commercial planning, but it must not determine which claims we accept or conceal a product’s disadvantages.
Comparisons should explain their selection criteria and the products actually considered. We will not imply that a small selection represents every product on the market. Prices and availability can change; where we quote them, we should identify when they were checked.
Checking gluten-free claims
Our standard is to check the exact product and formulation against current manufacturer documentation and, when certification is claimed, the relevant certification record. Flavors, sizes and markets may differ. A claim for one product is not automatically a claim for an entire brand.
We distinguish a manufacturer’s gluten-free statement from third-party gluten-free certification. We record the source and verification date and note available allergen or manufacturing information. An ingredient list alone, a retailer description or an AI-generated answer is not sufficient verification.
If we cannot verify a claim, we should say that it remains unverified rather than present it as established. We do not guarantee zero exposure or describe a product as universally “celiac safe.”
Evaluating health and recovery evidence
We separate scientific findings from manufacturer advertising and consumer experiences. Where a health-related claim is material to a recommendation, our standard is to examine the supporting research and explain relevant limitations, including who was studied and whether the findings apply to the specific product.
An ingredient study does not automatically establish that a finished product produces the same result. A quoted researcher is a source, not a RecoverFitNow author, reviewer or endorser.
Content that becomes diagnostic, therapeutic or individualized should be narrowed to general consumer information or held for appropriate professional review. A medical-review credit will appear only after a qualified person has actually completed that review.
Research-based evaluations and hands-on testing
Research-based evaluations use documentation, product specifications, relevant certification records and independent research. Consumer feedback can identify practical questions but does not prove a health benefit.
A research-based review must not imply that we tasted, wore, measured or used a product. If hands-on testing occurs, the article should identify what was tested, how it was assessed, its limitations and whether a sample was supplied. Original measurements and observations should be distinguishable from manufacturer specifications.
AI assistance and editorial responsibility
AI may help organize research, outline drafts, compare documented specifications and edit text. AI output is a draft, not evidence. Important factual claims and citations must be checked against their underlying sources before publication.
AI must not invent product experience, testimonials, studies, certifications, credentials or prices. Publication remains subject to the publisher’s approval process. An editorial byline does not imply that a clinician reviewed the work.
Affiliate relationships and independence
Where RecoverFitNow earns a commission from a purchase, the page should disclose that relationship before affiliate recommendations. Gifts and sponsorships should also be disclosed when relevant. Commercial relationships must not justify unsupported claims or the omission of meaningful limitations.
Our editorial standard is to explain why a product may suit a particular need and who should consider alternatives. We do not promise a favorable review in return for a sample or payment.
Updates and corrections
Our target is to review important commercial pages approximately every six months, and sooner when we learn of a formulation, certification, availability or other material change. This is a review target, not a claim that every page has already met it.
If you identify a possible error, contact recoverfitnow@gmail.com with the page address and supporting source. We will assess the evidence and, where warranted, correct the page. Significant factual corrections should be explained so readers can understand what changed. A changed date alone does not count as a substantive review.